Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Anonymous Network I2P 0.7.2 Released

timothy posted more than 5 years ago | from the layers-and-layers dept.

Privacy 231

Mathiasdm writes "The Invisible Internet Project, also known as I2P, has seen its 0.7.2 release (download). I2P uses multiple encryption layers, and routing through several other computers to hide both sender and receiver of messages. On top of the network, regular services such as mail, browsing, file sharing and chatting are supported. This release (and all of the releases since 0.7) is at the start of a new development period, in which the I2P developers wish to spread the word about the secure network. This new release includes performance improvements, a first edition of an experimental new desktop interface and security improvements (by limiting the number of tunnels a single peer can participate in)."

cancel ×

231 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Wow, way to abbreviate there (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27639677)

By abbreviating I2P instead of IIP they save a whole zero characters.

Re:Wow, way to abbreviate there (4, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27639689)

Here I was thinking that it was RP, damn me and my 1337 h4x0r sk1llz

Re:Wow, way to abbreviate there (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27639699)

... because everyone knows posting on slashdot as AC is the way to conserve characters.

Re:Wow, way to abbreviate there (1)

nicolas.kassis (875270) | more than 5 years ago | (#27639749)

Great compression algorithm they are using there. Hope they got something more efficient in their project.

Re:Wow, way to abbreviate there (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27639887)

Efficient? Using this java crap. Yeah, right...

Re:Wow, way to abbreviate there (1)

Mage Powers (607708) | more than 5 years ago | (#27639909)

I2P sounds better than Aye Aye Pee

then theres the eeeeeeepc...

Re:Wow, way to abbreviate there (5, Funny)

grodzix (1235802) | more than 5 years ago | (#27640057)

I2P sounds better than Aye Aye Pee

Especially if you put 'need' between 'I' & '2' [:

Re:Wow, way to abbreviate there (5, Insightful)

CarpetShark (865376) | more than 5 years ago | (#27639945)

I find "I2P" quite recognisable as a "trademark", and more importantly, quite googleable, since it doesn't share namespace with myriad corporate TLAs. Works for me.

Re:Wow, way to abbreviate there (1)

fractoid (1076465) | more than 5 years ago | (#27641313)

I2P looks a lot like l2p to me. As in 'ifl2p', or "It's fine, learn to play".

Re:Wow, way to abbreviate there (5, Informative)

trust_jmh (651322) | more than 5 years ago | (#27640025)

By abbreviating I2P instead of IIP they save a whole zero characters.

It is to distinguish it from another anonymous network;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invisible_IRC_Project [wikipedia.org]

Re:Wow, way to abbreviate there (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27640125)

Can anyone compare this I2P, Invisible IRC, and Tor, etc?

I'm just curious as to how they all differ.. and if any have any REAL usable performance.

Re:Wow, way to abbreviate there (4, Informative)

DMUTPeregrine (612791) | more than 5 years ago | (#27640477)

I don't know IIP, but I2p has a darknet, like freenet, but also allows routing to the internet like tor. It's just as slow as any of the other onion routers, but combines good bits from freenet and tor.

Re:Wow, way to abbreviate there (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27640741)

I2P creates an entire seperate (though visible) network that allows tcp transport where it is impossible to connect an I2P address to an IP address. It is easy to tell who is using I2P but not what they're doing on the network. I2P also (or at least used to) includes a proxy out to the full internet. I2P is usable but often times fairly slow (mostly because alot of sites are hosted on people's cable/dsl systems).

Invisible IRC only works for IRC, and nothing else.

Tor is more of an anonymizing proxy than an entire seperate network. It's anonymity isn't quite as good as I2P, but in general, you'll get much better transfer rates to the regular internet through tor than I2P.

Freenet is another approach to anonymous network, but is implemented closer to a searchable, distributed, highly redundant, encrypted filesystem. It is anonymous, but only really allows publishing and reading of content, and it is pretty much impossible to have real time (or even close) communication with it.

Re:Wow, way to abbreviate there (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27640489)

I always wondered about that with I2C or I squared C as it's read out. EYE SQUARED SEE, is that quicker than IIC. I dunno, and to be fair, beyond wondering about it's efficacy, I really don't care.

Oh well.

Re:Wow, way to abbreviate there (1)

TheUser0x58 (733947) | more than 5 years ago | (#27641161)

There is a bit of precedent in the technology world for this (IMO, annoying) kind of acronym construction: W3C (World Wide Web Consortium), I2C (Inter-Integrated Circuit), L2CAP (Logical Link Control and Adaptation Protocol), to name a few from memory.

First post? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27639685)

Does this mean I can live without fearing the RIAA?

Re:First post? (1)

CarpetShark (865376) | more than 5 years ago | (#27640195)

No, this means you can live in another, RIAA-free dimension, where the Intarwebs have never reached more than 2Kbps ;)

Re:First post? (4, Informative)

Klaus_1250 (987230) | more than 5 years ago | (#27640319)

I've been using I2P on-and-off for quite a while, and it is way faster than 2Kbps. BitTorrent over I2P can reach speeds of 50KBps and it could probably go faster if there was a mature BitTorrent client for I2P. Latency is low as well. Overall, I2P is much more usable than TOR.

Re:First post? (2, Interesting)

CarpetShark (865376) | more than 5 years ago | (#27640351)

Doesn't sound half bad when you put it like that :)

Did anyone else misread that? (5, Funny)

_Hellfire_ (170113) | more than 5 years ago | (#27639739)

I initially read that as "Anonymous Network 127.0.0.1 Released" and thought "did I miss April Fools this year?"

Re:Did anyone else misread that? (1)

SalaSSin (1414849) | more than 5 years ago | (#27639843)

I was having a similar problem, yeah... (it being midnight here on a sunday evening...)

Re:Did anyone else misread that? (1)

noidentity (188756) | more than 5 years ago | (#27640399)

Haha, same here; my first glance at the headline left me thinking it was some joke "uber secret 127.0.0.1 network". The I2P looks like 127...

I2P vs TOR (2, Interesting)

areusche (1297613) | more than 5 years ago | (#27639743)

I'm in a bit of a rush but how is this any different then say TOR? I read over the about I2P page and it sounds like a similar setup. If I'm wrong (which I most likely am) please correct me.

Re:I2P vs TOR (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27639805)

I'm in a bit of a rush but how is this any different then say TOR?

http://www.i2p2.de/techintro.html#similar.tor

Re:I2P vs TOR (0, Redundant)

areusche (1297613) | more than 5 years ago | (#27639855)

Someone mod this coward up! Thanks for finding that.

Re:I2P vs TOR (5, Funny)

mrsteveman1 (1010381) | more than 5 years ago | (#27640573)

No dammit, this is encouraging people to read things. Sure it's just a simple link this time, then sooner or later its TFA, then god forbid, TFM. We can't have that, please stop.

Re:I2P vs TOR (2, Funny)

Hurricane78 (562437) | more than 5 years ago | (#27640639)

Don't worry. He did not link the URL. And we're not copying and pasting URL to the address bar anytime soon. (God, that was painful to even write. ^^)

Re:I2P vs TOR (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27639919)

I suspect I2P is also more tolerant of P2P. Tor has been suffering massive speed hits due to arseholes using P2P over it.

Re:I2P vs TOR (4, Informative)

x78 (1099371) | more than 5 years ago | (#27639921)

When last I used it seemed that I2P has a whole network of ".i2p" domain things that you could only access if you were a part of the I2P network.
Tor is just a proxying service is it not?
I think it's something like if Tor was a private network that only Tor users could access.

Re:I2P vs TOR (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27640001)

http://eqt5g4fuenphqinx.onion/

Re:I2P vs TOR (3, Interesting)

rafa (491) | more than 5 years ago | (#27640173)

I believe .onion services can be created using tor as well, providing a similar service - but it's been a while since I last read about them.

Re:I2P vs TOR (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27640491)

Tor: http://eqt5g4fuenphqinx.onion/

Re:I2P vs TOR (4, Funny)

cdgeorge (775179) | more than 5 years ago | (#27639959)

i just googled for the above text by mistake, and google already found the entry comment. Is this fast or what?

Re:I2P vs TOR (4, Funny)

chromas (1085949) | more than 5 years ago | (#27640651)

You think that's fast? I just tried googling it and I got your comment with my reply!

Re:I2P vs TOR (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27640159)

Excuse me kind sir. Would you take a moment and put your penis in my butt?

I will pay six pence.

Re:I2P vs TOR (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27640213)

One of the primary differences is Tor says "don't do large downloads through our system" whereas I2P says "go ahead, do torrents, whatever".

At least that's what it was years ago. I tried I2P a few times but there was basically nothing on it. There was/is more stuff on Freenet which is similar. Though one of I2P's goals was to be faster than Freenet. Tor has the most stuff because it's just a connector to the regular 'ol Internet.

Slow as usual... (2, Interesting)

blahbooboo (839709) | more than 5 years ago | (#27639751)

This is far from the first P2P to attempt hiding IP etc. I have not used this system, but all the others that have done (and do) the same thing end up with the same problem -- the system ends up being painfully slow to use.

Oh well, maybe THIS one will not be?

Re:Slow as usual... (5, Insightful)

c0d3g33k (102699) | more than 5 years ago | (#27639883)

The question should be how slow is it compared to the speed experienced after the ISP shuts you off (or the authorities confiscate computing equipment) due to an accusation of illegal activity by the *IAA. The performance hit may seem painfully slow until compared to the slowness of 0 bps. In fact, such a system IMHO should have an easy to use toggle (desktop widget, browser plugin) so that "normal browsing" goes through the usual channels and only the limited periods of "private browsing" are experienced with full protection on. Blend in with the crowd by default and leave the security for when you really need it.

Re:Slow as usual... (3, Interesting)

blahbooboo (839709) | more than 5 years ago | (#27639955)

The question should be how slow is it compared to the speed experienced after the ISP shuts you off (or the authorities confiscate computing equipment) due to an accusation of illegal activity by the *IAA. The performance hit may seem painfully slow until compared to the slowness of 0 bps. In fact, such a system IMHO should have an easy to use toggle (desktop widget, browser plugin) so that "normal browsing" goes through the usual channels and only the limited periods of "private browsing" are experienced with full protection on. Blend in with the crowd by default and leave the security for when you really need it.

How about anonymous by using an open wireless network? Or use the coffee shop wireless network down the street? Or go to a library? There are many better options for being anonymous if you choose...

Re:Slow as usual... (2, Insightful)

c0d3g33k (102699) | more than 5 years ago | (#27640043)

Indeed. All viable options. Until you want to connect to a personal service (email, webserver, bank, TPB etc.) on an open and untrusted network. Then your anonymity can be compromised by any enterprising kiddie monitoring the network. It's not about being anonymous via connecting from a network other than the home account, it's about being anonymous by going into stealth-mode so it's hard to determine who you are and what you are up to regardless of where you are connecting from.

Re:Slow as usual... (3, Interesting)

Darkness404 (1287218) | more than 5 years ago | (#27640225)

But assuming you are transmitting all needed information over HTTPS, there really isn't that much that can be detected from the script kiddy with a packet sniffer.

Re:Slow as usual... (2, Informative)

linzeal (197905) | more than 5 years ago | (#27640203)

That will not hide your geographical location though.

Re:Slow as usual... (1)

Hurricane78 (562437) | more than 5 years ago | (#27640859)

You think physically moving to another geographical location does not hide his geographical location?

When was the last time you went out.
No, I mean really leave your chair. And your room. And your house. No. Not the one in your online game. The real one! ^^

(I know what you meant, but I think driving to another city does a pretty well job. :) Just be sure to not leave any genetic / fingerprint / etc. traces on that computer desk.

Re:Slow as usual... (1)

Creepy Crawler (680178) | more than 5 years ago | (#27640015)

Do better than that. Leech off of others wifi, or use public free wifi to do "high risk downloading".

Frankly, nobody cares about crap group or god_awful_teevee show. It's the Wolverines, Cams and leaks the biggies care about. If you rapidshare a book once in a while, or download unlicensed anime/foreign tv shows, nobody cares. It's when you hit the dangerous stuff, or are blatantly peaking usage caps (if you ARE the top user in the city, or near it).

Now, if you hit high usage, throw ubuntu package rsyncing in there as a big data-sink so you have plausible deniability. An open wifi would help too.

Re:Slow as usual... (4, Insightful)

Opportunist (166417) | more than 5 years ago | (#27640027)

By that logic, any encrypted traffic instantly becomes "interesting".

Instead I'd recommend encrypting as much as possible. The more noise, the better.

Re:Slow as usual... (1)

Tony Stark (1391845) | more than 5 years ago | (#27640475)

I whole-heartedly agree with this. Especially when it comes to email; as we all know this is like sending a postcard. The more encrypted email out there, the less suspicious they become, seeing as how most people probably don't want their business out there anyway.

Re:Slow as usual... (1)

Hurricane78 (562437) | more than 5 years ago | (#27640761)

It has been some years since I last submitted or received an unencrypted e-mail. Unfortunately only the part to my provider or my own server are encrypted (IMAPS/SSMTP), but hey, It certainly adds to the noise. :)

Re:Slow as usual... (2, Interesting)

Kotoku (1531373) | more than 5 years ago | (#27640071)

Speed Cost Privacy Pick two. Currently privacy requires a bandwidth overheads to hide the traffic. You can pay companies for private VPN's in other countries that won't give you up, and avoid some speed hits. For most of us though we're stuck with masking our traffic on the cheap end.

Re:Slow as usual... (2, Insightful)

gringofrijolero (1489395) | more than 5 years ago | (#27640199)

Any attempt at obfuscation will draw the attention of interested parties. A change from "normal" to "private" will be noticeable. Blending in means acting normal, not suddenly pulling a ski mask over your face when you're about to pull a heist.

Re:Slow as usual... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27640691)

If I always wear a ski mask, nobody will think anything is about to happen when I walk into a bank.

Re:Slow as usual... (1)

gringofrijolero (1489395) | more than 5 years ago | (#27640787)

Heh, more likely they won't let you in. Some places make you remove ball caps and sunglasses. ISPs can make the same types of requirements

ISPs will cut you off anyway (1)

CarpetShark (865376) | more than 5 years ago | (#27640231)

The question should be how slow is it compared to the speed experienced after the ISP shuts you off

Since most ISPs are now metering (and arguably DRMing) by GB transferred rather than just going by bandwidth, the same thing will happen anyway.

Re:Slow as usual... (1)

nurb432 (527695) | more than 5 years ago | (#27640413)

Or your ISP shuts you off due to bandwidth use... No 'suspicion/accusation' needed.

Somedays you cant win.

Re:Slow as usual... (1)

RAMMS+EIN (578166) | more than 5 years ago | (#27640555)

When contemplating this, it is important to realize that participating in projects like I2P and (especially) TOR increases the chances of being cut of from the Internet or worse. After all, your IP address will be involved in criminal activities, and you will have no way to pass the buck to those who are really behind said activities.

Re:Slow as usual... (3, Informative)

FreenetFan (1182901) | more than 5 years ago | (#27640687)

I think you have your facts wrong. :D

It's true, if you are a Tor "exit node" that proxies to the regular internet, you will be at risk of having your IP address associated with illegal websites. But most people don't do this.

Standard use of I2P or Tor will put you at virtually no risk whatsoever. You are just routing encrypted traffic of which you have no idea of the content.

Re:Slow as usual... (1)

Hurricane78 (562437) | more than 5 years ago | (#27640715)

Well, my little home server could certainly have the normal network and that thing as a VPN, and allow one to toggle the routing with a little web-, ssh-, or desktop applet interface.

Re:Slow as usual... (5, Insightful)

tpwch (748980) | more than 5 years ago | (#27639899)

Maybe it is slow, but currently that is the price for anonymity. If you don't think waiting a few seconds here and there is worth it for being anonymous then don't use services like this. There are plenty of people who think anonymity is worth a lot more than that. If you only want to be anonymous if its convenient and without negative side effects then you are probably not one of the ones who need to be anonymous.

Re:Slow as usual... (-1, Redundant)

blahbooboo (839709) | more than 5 years ago | (#27639979)

Maybe it is slow, but currently that is the price for anonymity. If you don't think waiting a few seconds here and there is worth it for being anonymous then don't use services like this. There are plenty of people who think anonymity is worth a lot more than that. If you only want to be anonymous if its convenient and without negative side effects then you are probably not one of the ones who need to be anonymous.

How about anonymous by using an open wireless network? Or use the coffee shop wireless network down the street? Or go to a library? There are many better options for being anonymous if you choose...

Re:Slow as usual... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27640223)

All of which can be pinpointed to your city... Not so anonymous.

Re:Slow as usual... (1)

physicsphairy (720718) | more than 5 years ago | (#27640045)

If you only want to be anonymous if its convenient and without negative side effects then you are probably not one of the ones who need to be anonymous.

Having more anonymous people increases the anonymity of everyone. The reason being that if you can identify non-anonymous people, you who is a member of the "anonymous" sub-demographic by the simple principle of exclusion. Details about timing of certain data requests may even narrow it down to a specific individual. The more anonymous data that traffics the internet, the more difficult it is to isolate any of it in particular.

It is also important to have widespread anonymity because this is the only way for anonymity to be socially excepted. If the only people who use anonymity are those who "need" it, it's going to be dominated by people doing illegal things, and the chance of anonymity itself remaining legal diminishes significantly.

Still exclusively for (-1, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27639779)

Paedophiles.

Doing this [goatse.fr] to unfortunate children.

Re:Still exclusively for (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27639849)

Still exclusively for
Chinese dissidents*

*who like little boys

There, fixed that for you.

well clearly . . . (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27639867)

Clearly nicolas.kassis, _Hellfire_, SalaSSin, areusche, and blahbooboo haven't gotten the message.

Pedophiles and Terrorists (4, Insightful)

MrMista_B (891430) | more than 5 years ago | (#27639967)

Yeah, I know how this is gonna be received:

"Shit, the people of our country might be able to share free and uncensored speech and information among themselves.

Wait, I know how to fix this! Headlines! "OMG Secret Pedophile and Terrorist Network" - anyone who wants to be anonymous on the internet /must/ be a pedohile or a terrorist. If you have no pedophilia or terrorism plots to hide, you have nothing to hide!"

Re:Pedophiles and Terrorists (5, Insightful)

Opportunist (166417) | more than 5 years ago | (#27640037)

Really?

With data retention becoming reality in Europe, it's only a small step until employers become interested in the data. Why did my employees gather information about certain diseases? Why are they looking at job pages? Why are they looking at my competitor's page or even exchange information with him?

As soon as data is gathered, its abuse is not far behind.

Re:Pedophiles and Terrorists (1)

Hurricane78 (562437) | more than 5 years ago | (#27640673)

Whooosh!

Re:Pedophiles and Terrorists (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27640921)

You missed the grand parent's sarcasm/humor completely.

Re:Pedophiles and Terrorists (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27640143)

If you have no pedophilia or terrorism plots to hide, you have nothing to hide!"

I have nothing to hide? Oh, well then, I guess I can reveal the locations of the bodies after all!

Re:Pedophiles and Terrorists (3, Insightful)

Nursie (632944) | more than 5 years ago | (#27640657)

There is, unfortunately, a nugget of truth in there somewhere.

None of these sorts of things, AFAICT, let you monitor what's going through your node. And that's important to me. Whilst I support free speech and the rights of people to communicate without government interference, I'm damned if my resources are going to be used to propagate child pr0n.

Re:Pedophiles and Terrorists (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27641191)

Yay, free speech as long as it's not too free.

Re:Pedophiles and Terrorists (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27641245)

Then you aren't supporting free speech, are you?

Re:Pedophiles and Terrorists (1)

Brian Stretch (5304) | more than 5 years ago | (#27641005)

So to discourage the development of NSA-proof networks the Obama administration should announce that the RIAA and MPAA have been told that they will no longer be able to sue free P2P sites and users? Or that the definition of "fair use" has been redefined into something more agreeable?

It's so crazy it just might work!

(j/k, I think...)

A few more features they could add (5, Interesting)

presidenteloco (659168) | more than 5 years ago | (#27640039)

I designed one of these about a decade ago and did some prototyping. Since I don't seem to have the time to realize it, here are a few extra features that could be added (if i2p does not already include these).

Encrypted-file-fragmenting, auto-globally-migrating, auto-redundant replicating "virtual" data store layer. Stored files automatically seek to be replicated enough times to be guaranteed perpetually persistent, and also seek to move to newer and better physical storage sites, and to globally distribute themselves, and auto-cache near user when needed.

With this addition, we may have the basis for, for example, a Facebook-like on-line identity avatar which is not owned by a single company like Facebook but just floats around all over the P2P network, and is truly owned by the person who it is about.

With that freeing up of the online identity from external control, we could extend it to include important identity information needed for the citizen to function in society. Medical records, different identity numbers for different government agencies, your real-world address, etc. All of these properties about you could be placed online by you following standard protocols and placed only onto a secure virtual site in the i2. Permission model would of course be default no permission, opened incrementally to authorized and authenticated other parties.

If we had this, the onus could now be placed on governments, medical systems, post offices, etc. to come to your avatar and request permission to know your address, or your medical number etc. No more change of address rigamerole. No more problems in your paperwork or medical history maintenance because you happen to move to another state or country.
etc.

It all relies on the open standards for the info and privacy protocols, and on the confidence of the person to put their info into a secure, encrypted, and non-owned virtual internet location.

Re:A few more features they could add (1)

Creepy Crawler (680178) | more than 5 years ago | (#27640083)

Greg Egan had a similar idea for his books.

He called it either a Mediator or a Cypherclerk. Its job was to authenticate, verify, encrypt, decrypt, submit to the network, retrieve from the network, and other general security functions based upon a civilization of sentient software. Although Egan leaves much to be desired about the details, he seems to indicate that it is also semi-sentient, as it learns. Nothing can be "run" on it, as we can do with our computers these days.

In one book, an outsider reads the mind of one citizen and duplicates the "tag" that identifies a citizen who is not present. After citizens request crypto tags proving who or what he is, the tags fail and they immediately know that the "outsider" is not as he claims.

Re:A few more features they could add (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27640165)

Greg Egan had a similar idea for his books.

Wow, this is quite a departure from My Two Dads and B.J. & the Bear.

Re:A few more features they could add (1)

Vu1turEMaN (1270774) | more than 5 years ago | (#27640653)

I thought you were talking about Eureka Seven, then I realized that it just used the name of Greg Egan...

Re:A few more features they could add (1)

Creepy Crawler (680178) | more than 5 years ago | (#27640797)

Nope. I'm talking about This Guy [netspace.net.au] .

Eureka Seven? Some anime? Nope. Im talking about an Australian computer scientist and author.

Re:A few more features they could add (1)

FreenetFan (1182901) | more than 5 years ago | (#27640725)

What you describe sounds very similar to Freenet.

Freenet is pretty much the only anonymous P2P system that includes an integrated, encrypted, and distributed data storage layer. The others like Tor and I2P all require that you host your data on a specific machine and it is just access to this data that is anonymised.

A weakness of this approach is downtime of your secret site can be correlated with downtime of your server e.g. during power cuts, etc. A benefit is that dynamic sites are possible using server-side languages.

Re:A few more features they could add (1)

whatevah (1130459) | more than 5 years ago | (#27641077)

Damn! I just got used to the term cloud. Now,
are we talking about... "floating clouds"? My head will explode!!

Re:A few more features they could add (2, Interesting)

cryptoluddite (658517) | more than 5 years ago | (#27641215)

I designed one of these about a decade ago and did some prototyping. Since I don't seem to have the time to realize it, here are a few extra features that could be added (if i2p does not already include these).

Here's a tip for anybody thinking of implementing something like i2p, tor, freenet, etc: if the user has to do anything and if it impacts performance it's not worth doing.

What's needed is something simple and pervasive:

1) compatible with regular TCP
2) optional so it is only in effect when both the source and destination support it
3) 'weak' so that there is not much performance impact, so there is no reason to disable it

For sake of example, half of an xtea [wikipedia.org] key can be sent by the SYN using the TCP options field and the other half provided by the server in the ACK. If the server doesn't return its half then no encryption takes place. The key is permuted by the data sent/received.

This simple scheme provides that anybody examining the TCP steam must have seen the first packets and must have followed the entire conversation, decrypting it along the way. There is no extra step involved that could introduce delays, and the state and CPU time is small enough to be not important to the end user or server. However, for anybody to wholesale monitor traffic, for whatever reason, it means they need a lot of expensive hardware. What ends up as 1% of your CPU time to decrypt a torrent requires a warehouse of servers to decrypt everybody's torrents.

A system like this has a huge advantage over tor, freenet, etc, in that everyday normal people can have it enabled by default, especially for open-source linux, *bsd distros. The actual anonymizing networks are worthless because only those with something to hide use them, or people who are hard-core idealists (which probably also gets you on some kind of 'watch list'). Ironically, this kind of system will raise the overall cost of monitoring to a point where tor, freenet, i2p, etc become viable.

Terror is WHAT? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27640047)

"Terror is many one"? What is THAT supposed to mean?

Sheesh, Slashdot tags are getting more and more obscure every day...

Is speed really your concern? (1)

girlintraining (1395911) | more than 5 years ago | (#27640115)

Okay, you want a faster network that doesn't have multiple layers, encryption, etc.? Fine -- use the NSA, CIA, FBI, DHS, ABC, NBC, LMNOP supported and approved network. Sorry to break it to you guys, but a global, multinational, digital, and public communications network is going to have interests on it you aren't going to like or want to see what you're sending. This is true no matter who you are. That's the nature of a PUBLIC communications network. Suck it up. Our governments inability to protect our rights, combined with the corporate and multinational interests killed so-called freedom. Now we have to pay a premium to have it back.

Be glad speed is the only thing you're losing in this deal. Historically, you stood to lose a whole lot more for these kinds of innovations. Like your life.

mod 04 (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27640127)

fastest-growing GAY later seen in May well remain personal rivalries represents the first avUoid going it was fun. If I'm you have a play Be any fucking

If I was in charge of the NSA (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27640259)

I would make sure to create (covertly of course) a whole bunch of these I2P, Tor like projects. And of course infiltrate all the existing ones. Finally I would make sure we had our own botnet based high speed Tor. (Whoops! I forgot to post this via Tor! Black and silent helicopters approaching...)

Related to Freenet? (1)

nurb432 (527695) | more than 5 years ago | (#27640407)

Sounds like its similar, does it also encrypt its local store?

Re:Related to Freenet? (5, Informative)

FreenetFan (1182901) | more than 5 years ago | (#27640767)

I2P doesn't do data storage like Freenet.

I2P only encrypts and anonymises the transport. It's up to you to host the services on your machine. I2P just means people can use those services (e.g. a webserver) without knowing who is hosting them, and without you knowing who is accessing them. IF you go off-line, your service goes offline too.

Freenet, on the other hand, does have an encrypted and distributed data storage layer. You can go off-line and your website will remain available.

My Vision (1)

RAMMS+EIN (578166) | more than 5 years ago | (#27640611)

My vision is to create, first of all, a network where any node can connect to any other node (unlike the current Internet, which has been infested by NAT).

Then, on top of that network, various interesting services can be built, including one that provides anonimity.

In interface, it could all be compatible with current IP networks, so that existing software can be used for it.

Does such a network exist already?

I've made some baby steps in implemeting one myself, but without much progress. One difficulty I've run into is that I can't seem to get tap devices to work (i.e. create something that looks like a network interface and then process the packets that go over that interface in my software). I get the device created and set up, but I'm not seeing any traffic on it.

No HTTPS support (5, Insightful)

thasmudyan (460603) | more than 5 years ago | (#27640663)

From their FAQ:

Within I2P, there is no need for HTTPS, as all traffic is encrypted end-to-end.

Sorry, I had to laugh a bit there. That's VERY naive. In anonymizing networks, HTTPS is the only thing that protects you from possibly corrupt exit nodes by encrypting the traffic between your browser and the destination webserver. To claim I2P doesn't need HTTPS support is misleading or at least ill-phrased.

Re:No HTTPS support (0)

vlm (69642) | more than 5 years ago | (#27640851)

Within I2P

possibly corrupt exit nodes

Those two things don't work together...

What you did miss, is https also authenticates the site owner, assuming real signed certs, which admittedly seems kind of pointless for an anonymous network. As if citibank.i2p is really "the real citibank" aka citibank.com.

Re:No HTTPS support (1)

thasmudyan (460603) | more than 5 years ago | (#27640881)

It's not pointless to route HTTPS through an anonymizer, because by doing that you still

  • circumvent censoring firewalls
  • hide the visited domain from your ISP's logs
  • hide your point of origin from the webserver's operator

Besides, not having HTTPS integration breaks 2-protocol authentication schemes like Google's signon (believe me, I just tried).

Also, I wasn't even talking about .i2p domains.

Re:No HTTPS support (1)

GodKingAmit (1192629) | more than 5 years ago | (#27640873)

I think you fail reading comprehension

Within I2P, there

Obviously they just mean when communicating to other I2P servers, not entering into the public internet (which would use an "exit node")

Re:No HTTPS support (1)

thasmudyan (460603) | more than 5 years ago | (#27640911)

Sadly, no, I didn't fail. In fact, they failed at grammar when they chose to say "within". I just tried, they really don't support HTTPS through I2P, try it for yourself if you don't believe me. to make it absolutely clear: you can't connect to an HTTPS server with I2P. Period. The fail is not on my end.

Re:No HTTPS support (1)

JesseMcDonald (536341) | more than 5 years ago | (#27641107)

This is I2P, not Tor. There are no exit nodes. The destination server is inside the I2P network. As stated in your own quote, the encryption truly is end-to-end, and HTTPS would consequently be redundant.

It wouldn't even help for authentication, since these sites don't exist on the public Internet (they use a private .i2p TLD), and no certification authorities exist for such domains. What benefit you could get from a self-signed key is inherent in the I2P network itself, as endpoints are identified by their encryption keys.

Re:No HTTPS support (1)

thasmudyan (460603) | more than 5 years ago | (#27641167)

I know that I2P nodes don't exist on the public internet, do I really sound that stupid? On second thought, don't answer that.

Anyway, you're wrong, the destination server is not necessarily inside the I2P network and there are exit nodes (whatever they are called in I2P lingo, I don't care).

Just install the thing and try it out. Please. You'll see that I'm right.

Re:No HTTPS support (1)

thasmudyan (460603) | more than 5 years ago | (#27641193)

Or, to make it even clearer:

Just like Tor, I2P has two modes of operation:

  • transfer data strictly within the I2P network (the .i2p TLP routing thing)
  • act as a proxy that makes connections to public webservers on your behalf and routes your data through the anonymizing network

And, no, the second "mode" is not meaningless or unnecessary. In fact, it's the primary usage for this stuff. And as such, HTTPS support is pretty important for all the reasons I laid out in the other comments.

Re:No HTTPS support (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27641195)

Within I2P, there is no need for HTTPS, as all traffic is encrypted end-to-end.

Sorry, I had to laugh a bit there. That's VERY naive. In anonymizing networks, HTTPS is the only thing that protects you from possibly corrupt exit nodes by encrypting the traffic between your browser and the destination webserver. To claim I2P doesn't need HTTPS support is misleading or at least ill-phrased.

Methinks you are a bit confused, unfortunately. As sibling posters have said, I2P has no exit nodes as Tor does.

But beyond that, and more imporantaly HTTPS/SSL also fails with Tor's exit nodes, and would not be secure even if I2P had exit nodes:

As Tor does not, and by design cannot, encrypt the traffic between an exit node and the target server, any exit node is in a position to capture any traffic passing through it which does not use end-to-end encryption, e.g. SSL. While this does not inherently violate the anonymity of the source, it affords added opportunities for data interception by self-selected third parties, greatly increasing the risk of exposure of sensitive data by users who are careless or who mistake Tor's anonymity for security.

Re:No HTTPS support (4, Interesting)

thasmudyan (460603) | more than 5 years ago | (#27641257)

Methinks you are a bit confused, unfortunately. As sibling posters have said, I2P has no exit nodes as Tor does.

It's not me who's confused, and sometimes it doesn't matter how many people keep insisting on wrong things, they are still wrong. Reality is not democratic.

As sibling posters have said, I2P has no exit nodes as Tor does.

Yes, it does. Do me a favor. Install I2P, change the proxy settings of your browser to localhost:4444 or whatever is configured after you start the service. You'll notice that you can, via randomly chosen exit nodes, access any HTTP URL. Now do a remote host lookup to confirm where your exit node is. This will be the moment you realize that you're wrong.

HTTPS/SSL also fails with Tor's exit nodes

No, it does not. In fact, the text you quoted proves you wrong right here: "any exit node is in a position to capture any traffic passing through it which does not use end-to-end encryption, e.g. SSL."

See, Tor can (and does) route SSL traffic transparently between your target webserver and your browser. There is no technical reason I2P cannot do the same and I'm guessing that they simply haven't gotten around to coding that feature yet.

Sniffers? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27640721)

What are their countermeasures against sniffing exit nodes?

Re:Sniffers? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27641175)

While you *can* use i2p as a proxy to view the Internet at large via a few exit proxies, the real intent is to create and use sites and services within the i2p darknet, as all traffic therein will benefit from i2p's encrypted transport.

Within i2p there is no exit node that sees your traffic in clear text.

From the threat model document at i2p2.de (http://www.i2p2.de/how_threatmodel.html [i2p2.de] ):

"I2P has no entry and exit points - all peers fully participate in the mix, and there are no network layer in- or out-proxies (however, at the application layer, a few outbound HTTP proxies exist at the moment)"

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>